Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph...
It simply answers your last objection.

...then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

I guess I need to repeat the relevant part of Kuller's comments that preclude your concern.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results.

The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.

Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?
When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.

rw